Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return

[Abaddon_ire]

I honestly do not care if there was something or nothing prior to the big bang. It could be this universe we are in is the result of the death of a prior universe, much like when a tree dies and rots it becomes fuel for new life. What is not required either way, something or nothing prior is a super cognition, but I am sure a smart guy like you has run across the problem of infinite regress.

If the universe was created by a super cognition, then that super cognition had an even bigger super cognition that created it, and that super cognition also had an even bigger super cognition create it. But if you want to claim God was not caused, seems to me less complex to say the universe doesn't need a super cognition to cause it.

Right, beer didn't "bang" out of nothing, so? Hurricanes also don't "bang" into existence as a result of Poseidon. But, what did happen with beer becoming an outcome, wasn't because of Spuds McKensy, but because of conditions that lead to evolution starting 4 billion years ago, then with 5 mass extinctions that allowed mammals to arise, that lead to primates, that lead to humans, whom eventually earned how to make beer.

I am sorry it bothers you when someone tells you we are not factory products, but we are not a product made by a super being,  but an outcome of natural processes. No magic guy in the sky needed to explain anything.

Of course, you can explain it all.  What was anybody else thinking?  No point, just ask you.

You have that backwards.There is no problem with caliming that one does not know. There is a problem with you claiming that you do know because a magic sky fairie told you so.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Of course, you can explain it all.  What was anybody else thinking?  No point, just ask you.

You have that backwards.There is no problem with caliming that one does not know. There is a problem with you claiming that you do know because a magic sky fairie told you so.

Who claimed that a "magic sky fairie" told them anything?  It's not a question of backwards or forwards if you make assertions that are irrelevant about the conversation.

[Brian37]

Hello, McFly, I never claimed I could explain it all.

I am saying the claims o antiquity were made back then, for the people back then, and do not translate any remote close knowledge we have today. In laymen's terms, "That was then this is now".

What we do know now, is that the brain, not the heart do the thinking, but back then people had no clue that the brain was the regulatory organ of the body. Back then males thought females were merely deposits, like fields you plant corn in, that is why the word "seed" is used in antiquity to refer to male sperm. Humans had no clue back then that females contributed half the DNA.

No, I don't know everything. But I do know that life existed long before claims of Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Jesus, Thor, Apollo, Osiris, Yahweh, and long before the first known writings, and long before even humans existed. I also know that this planet will be here long after we go extinct.

Maybe you need to consider "all this" is not a product of a super cognition, but merely a natural temporary blip of an outcome.  Maybe you need to consider that humans are merely projecting their own qualities on the world around them in fictional form.

- Your statement about heart vs mind has already been proven false.  The physiology of the heart is a determining factor of rational thought, but we can become less rational when we interject biases. See - Wisdom is a Matter of Both Heart and Mind, - Neuroscience News

- Sure, will consider that you are merely projecting your own qualities on the world around you in fictional form, as you did with your statement about the mind and heart.

- Your statement about women is also false.  It actually addresses this in the book of Genesis.

The heart does not act as the brain, the brain is the only organ that has the capability of thought and cognition. The brain stem regulates the heart, and liver and lungs and kidneys. All the heart does is pump blood. It does speed up or slow down, do to electro chemical reactions that our senses like our eyes, nose, hearing, and touch the brain intakes. But the heart is not the seat of our awareness.

To say the heart interacts with the brain is a "NO SHIT" but it is still not a brain itself, by itself. We cant live without a heart it no, but it is not where our thinking happens. Our brain is where we exist. We are our brains in motion. Nothing more.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

- Your statement about heart vs mind has already been proven false.  The physiology of the heart is a determining factor of rational thought, but we can become less rational when we interject biases. See - Wisdom is a Matter of Both Heart and Mind, - Neuroscience News

- Sure, will consider that you are merely projecting your own qualities on the world around you in fictional form, as you did with your statement about the mind and heart.

- Your statement about women is also false.  It actually addresses this in the book of Genesis.

The heart does not act as the brain, the brain is the only organ that has the capability of thought and cognition. The brain stem regulates the heart, and liver and lungs and kidneys. All the heart does is pump blood. It does speed up or slow down, do to electro chemical reactions that our senses like our eyes, nose, hearing, and touch the brain intakes. But the heart is not the seat of our awareness.

Click link, read, too e-z.

[Brian37]

The heart does not act as the brain, the brain is the only organ that has the capability of thought and cognition. The brain stem regulates the heart, and liver and lungs and kidneys. All the heart does is pump blood. It does speed up or slow down, do to electro chemical reactions that our senses like our eyes, nose, hearing, and touch the brain intakes. But the heart is not the seat of our awareness.

Click link, read, too e-z.

Um no, damned sure you took that article out of context. Just like you want to claim "theory" in scientific language cant make predictions, which it does.

Yes clicked on that link, and it yep, you took that out of context.

The authors were NOT saying the heart could function like a brain all by itself. What they are saying, is really not new. But in that our fight or flight evolution causes our organs to work in concert to let us know when something is wrong. But, again, they are NOT saying the heart is a brain itself, They are saying our brain stem, which regulates our organs have a neurological connection, and that is true, But you are being disingenuous.

All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses.

What it does not take into account however, is as "wise" as a person might be, is our same species can be healthy and survive and still base that success on false claims. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in the sun God Ra, and no, I can't build a pyramid. I wouldn't even know where to start. But all that success didn't make Osiris, Isis or Horus real. 

"Wise" is a relative term. I see wisdom in every religion. Motifs of kindness, empathy and compassion exist in every religion. But, that "wisdom" isn't a product of the divine, but a product of our evolution.

---

Quote article...."“We already knew that people with greater variation in their heart rate show superior performance in the brain’s executive functioning such as working memory,” says Prof. Grossmann. “However, that does not necessarily mean these people are wiser – in fact, some people may use their cognitive skills to make unwise decisions. "

"UNWISE DECISIONS"

You missed that part.

---

What they are saying, is that if you exercise your odds of turning on a dime(even if just making a sudden decision) when need be increase, they are not saying that turning on that dime will always lead you in the right direction.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Click link, read, too e-z.

Um no, damned sure you took that article out of context. Just like you want to claim "theory" in scientific language cant make predictions, which it does.

Yes clicked on that link, and it yep, you took that out of context.

The authors were NOT saying the heart could function like a brain all by itself. What they are saying, is really not new. But in that our fight or flight evolution causes our organs to work in concert to let us know when something is wrong. But, again, they are NOT saying the heart is a brain itself, They are saying our brain stem, which regulates our organs have a neurological connection, and that is true, But you are being disingenuous.

All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses.

What it does not take into account however, is as "wise" as a person might be, is our same species can be healthy and survive and still base that success on false claims. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in the sun God Ra, and no, I can't build a pyramid. I wouldn't even know where to start. But all that success didn't make Osiris, Isis or Horus real. 

"Wise" is a relative term. I see wisdom in every religion. Motifs of kindness, empathy and compassion exist in every religion. But, that "wisdom" isn't a product of the divine, but a product of our evolution.

---

Quote article...."“We already knew that people with greater variation in their heart rate show superior performance in the brain’s executive functioning such as working memory,” says Prof. Grossmann. “However, that does not necessarily mean these people are wiser – in fact, some people may use their cognitive skills to make unwise decisions. "

"UNWISE DECISIONS"

You missed that part.

---

What they are saying, is that if you exercise your odds of turning on a dime(even if just making a sudden decision) when need be increase, they are not saying that turning on that dime will always lead you in the right direction.

I didn't say "by itself."  They work as a system.  Additionally, you just stated the opposite in terms of rationale.  It's predominantly the lower activity, as stated in the research.

Quote from you:

"All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses."

Quote from journal info:

"The new study is the first to show that the physiology of the heart, specifically the variability of heart rate during low physical activity, is related to less biased, wiser judgment..."

[Brian37]

Um no, damned sure you took that article out of context. Just like you want to claim "theory" in scientific language cant make predictions, which it does.

Yes clicked on that link, and it yep, you took that out of context.

The authors were NOT saying the heart could function like a brain all by itself. What they are saying, is really not new. But in that our fight or flight evolution causes our organs to work in concert to let us know when something is wrong. But, again, they are NOT saying the heart is a brain itself, They are saying our brain stem, which regulates our organs have a neurological connection, and that is true, But you are being disingenuous.

All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses.

What it does not take into account however, is as "wise" as a person might be, is our same species can be healthy and survive and still base that success on false claims. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in the sun God Ra, and no, I can't build a pyramid. I wouldn't even know where to start. But all that success didn't make Osiris, Isis or Horus real. 

"Wise" is a relative term. I see wisdom in every religion. Motifs of kindness, empathy and compassion exist in every religion. But, that "wisdom" isn't a product of the divine, but a product of our evolution.

---

"UNWISE DECISIONS"

You missed that part.

---

What they are saying, is that if you exercise your odds of turning on a dime(even if just making a sudden decision) when need be increase, they are not saying that turning on that dime will always lead you in the right direction.

I didn't say "by itself."  They work as a system.  Additionally, you just stated the opposite in terms of rationale.  It's predominantly the lower activity, as stated in the research.

Quote from you:

"All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses."

Quote from journal info:

"The new study is the first to show that the physiology of the heart, specifically the variability of heart rate during low physical activity, is related to less biased, wiser judgment..."

 Organs work as a system? "I'm Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room, our top story tonight YOU DON'T SAY?"

No, you made your original post when you linked that article with the intent to imply that something super natural was at the core.

And again, you still ignore the part that varying heart rates, while healthy, and can lead to faster responses, that those responses DO NOT always lead to factual conclusions. IE as the article said, "Unwise decisions".

---

All the article is saying is don't sit on your ass all day. But even if you are active, you can exercise and work out and train to be a healthy member of Al Qaeda, never smoke and drink, and still fly a plane into a sky scraper.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I didn't say "by itself."  They work as a system.  Additionally, you just stated the opposite in terms of rationale.  It's predominantly the lower activity, as stated in the research.

Quote from you:

"All it is saying is that ON AVERAGE, the more active you are ON AVERAGE, the better the odds that you will have better cognitive responses."

Quote from journal info:

"The new study is the first to show that the physiology of the heart, specifically the variability of heart rate during low physical activity, is related to less biased, wiser judgment..."

 Organs work as a system? "I'm Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room, our top story tonight YOU DON'T SAY?"

No, you made your original post when you linked that article with the intent to imply that something super natural was at the core.

And again, you still ignore the part that varying heart rates, while healthy, and can lead to faster responses, that those responses DO NOT always lead to factual conclusions. IE as the article said, "Unwise decisions".

---

All the article is saying is don't sit on your ass all day. But even if you are active, you can exercise and work out and train to be a healthy member of Al Qaeda, never smoke and drink, and still fly a plane into a sky scraper.

- Okay, well you said it was just the brain.  Now you acknowledge a "system."  Great, now we can agree.
- You keep telling me what I think and what I'm attempting to imply.  Funny thing is you're usually wrong about it, as in this case as well.
- I didn't "ignore."  In fact, I stated bias can interfere.   Same post as the link I provided and same line, I said:

"...but we can become less rational when we interject biases."

Did you miss that part?  Maybe actually listen to others instead of determining what you want to believe is the answer.  I have no problem with friendly disagreements, but it's good to at least have order as to who is saying what instead of assuming, saying they said something else, or simply ignoring what has been said.  Happens once or twice, no big deal.  Probably an accident and I'm guilty of it too sometimes, but you constantly do it in nearly every post.

[Godscreated]

there is no proof of the big bang

Oh look GC never heard about evidence for the big bang like the background radiation of the universe from the big bang itself and doesn't know that Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe actually a took a picture of our universe as a baby not long ago after the Big Bang.

So maybe if I show him the picture of the early universe



and tell him that over 80 years now scientists can observe the big bang by studying background radiation he'll see that there is indeed evidence for big bang and he'll start abandoning his childish worldview.

 Oh look this guy believes evidence is proof and what he calls back ground radiation is also not proven and no one outside of God knows the bounds of the universe.

GC

[downbeatplumb]

Nor do beer makers claim they poof'ed beer into existence with a snap of their fingers.

Right, lucky for you beer just "banged" from nothing and made itself.

You I think believe that god always existed.
But you have a problem.
Because if god always existed then he needed time and space to exist in. And if a god can exist there then so can some natural cause of our universe.

Anywhere god can be so can things other than a god.

What could possibly change that view evidence FOR a god however first you have to tell me what you think a god actually is and you keep avoiding that. 
I don't think you know.
I certainly don't know what you think one is.